Saturday, March 14, 2015

Seniors don't want high-density development?

We are told by former mayor Teresa Barth and other "Smart Growth" devotees that seniors want high-density development.

The reality?  Not so much.

NBC News via bubbleinfo:
Although Boomers are most likely to be satisfied with the size of their current homes, the conventional wisdom that these empty nesters would downsize to smaller homes later in life turned out to not be the case. “It is a bit contrary,” said Trulia housing economist Ralph McLaughlin. “According to our survey, we are finding that almost as many of them want larger homes.”

While 21 percent of Baby Boomers want a smaller house, the highest percentage of any age bracket, the number who still want to go bigger is five percentage points higher. Last year, Fannie Mae noted that Boomers displayed no hurry to trade in their houses for retirement condos.
Yes, it's an unscientific online poll. But it aligns with the sentiments of the senior citizens we know. We still haven't met the senior who wants to move from Neptune or Encinitas Ranch to Pacific Station.

41 comments:

  1. Barth was probably at the same Shea training seminar that Kranz attended.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Yes, it's an unscientific online poll." I hope they weren't using Peak Democracy because then we would know it's unreliable. Or is that just when it's something we oppose but when it supports our position there is no problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barth and Shaffer believe in high-density living as a solution to climate change. Shaffer lives in a giant box of a house - she needs to "be the change she wants to see" before forces her world vision on others and both she and Barth need to revisit the "science" behind their claims of how seniors want to live.

      Delete
    2. Barth and Shaffer think of themselves as the aristocracy; the chicken boxes are for the proletariat.

      Delete
    3. Barth: good at playing the victim, after she had the power she wanted she found it was easier to... still be the victim.
      Shaffer: not capable of any type of leadership she skates by on the council as she did in academia.

      Delete
    4. 12:44 PM Very accurate assessment!

      Delete
    5. 12:27 PM

      I thought Barth lives in a condo off the Cardiff Town Center.

      Delete
    6. Barth lives in a condo behind the center where VG's is. They are small but very nice condos. I almost bought one myself when they first cam on the market.

      Delete
  3. I don't think you can take an argument, and a weak one at that about seniors and their housing desires in the U.S. as a whole and transpose that on Encinitas as a whole. More of a factor in this environment is people cashing out on a house that cost $100k or less that is now worth $800k and up. With the lack of pensions, savings etc. coupled with a recession and the lack of interest in hiring or keeping older workers, and you have a recipe for people selling their homes for money. I've seen in 5-10 in my own neighborhood and amongst other people I know. For most people, it's their one big asset...

    -MGJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. And for those of you who care, Barth is no longer on our council, but you may continue to beat the dead horse if you wish...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barth continues to wield power with her little "trash pick up group" and influence her history in Encinitas. I pick up trash but don't call the press about it, Barth does.

      Delete
    2. The woman still sends out a "newsletter" every week just the same as if she were still on the council. It would be easier to stop beating the horse if it would finally, truly, drop off the face of the earth.

      Delete
    3. It's a free country, and she can do whatever she wants, the same Doug Harwood and his gang wield power behind the scenes....

      Delete
  5. Just for comparison, there were approximately 5.5 million new and existing homes sold in 2013. Trulia, a website geared toward those looking for homes surveyed approximately 2,000. That is less than .04% of those who bought homes in 2013. By comparison using a conservative 100 Peak Democracy legitimate respondents that is .25% of Encinitas registered voters rounded up to 40,000. So not only is the survey unscientific, it's nowhere representative. But as long as it serves to confirm preconceived biases that's okay here. No wonder Encinitas citizens are confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you don't believe Fannie Mae or AARP, either, but you'll take the Smart Growthers' completely unsubstantiated assertions as truth?

      http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/research/datanotes/pdf/housing-insights-061214.pdf

      Delete
    2. 3:03 PM

      To start with, I've known Baby Boomers in both camps. Those that want to downsize to give them more liquidity and time to go on those AARP sponsored trips and others that are quite happy where they are in the empty nest single family house. Many remain there by themselves either because of divorce or the death of their spouse. People get used to where they live and many don't want to move. But as time goes on and the cost of remaining in that single family house becomes greater both in time and money, the inclination to move grows. I don't view this as everyone bolting at once. It's a process over time and should be welcomed as it allows new families to move in as one generation replaces another. I was walking in my old neighborhood a few years ago when I passed a couple of ten year olds and it struck me that they represented a second generation after me growing up in that neighborhood.

      As Baby Boomers start making those choices, it would be nice if many could remain in the town they love but we aren't going to accommodate everyone.

      And about those young families who want to move in. I think many of the Millennials will want to forsake the high density vibe that they seek now when they start having families but I think they will try blend the two as much as possible - or so my son tells me.

      So the "stack & pack", high density meme is a red herring. Yes, the city in whatever form will increase some sites with modest density increases to satisfy state requirements but we're not turning into San Diego's Little Italy. But who cares as long as people can keep trashing Barth and others.

      Funny how you never addressed the survey issue.

      Finally, here is the last paragraphs from the Fannie Mae report:

      Merely a Delay of the Inevitable?

      The stability in single-family detached occupancy among Baby Boomers will eventually come to an end, if not by Boomers’ choice, then as a consequence of advancing age or mortality that would make it difficult or impossible to maintain a single-family home. Indeed, because the data examined in this Housing Insights are available only through 2012, the trends depicted here might miss more recent changes in Boomer housing behavior in response to the continued recovery of the housing market and economy. And, given the enormous size of the Boomer generation, even small changes in Boomer housing tendencies could have significant market impacts.

      As others have noted, coming changes in the housing consumption of the Baby Boom generation have potentially far-reaching implications for the U.S. housing market.14 The housing situation of Boomers bears continued close monitoring, even if some indicators have yet to reveal major signs of change.

      Delete
  6. If there is no demand, then the proposed zoning changes are moot. Builders will not risk capital to build high density units if no one wants them.

    Sounds like an argument for the HEU. Vote yes, so we can get compliant, aviod law suits, and apply for grants. Don't worry about the R30; it will never happen, because studies show no one wants them.

    Thanks, EU. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They use the seniors bullshit to build crap like Pacific Station for 2nd homes for the rich and vacation rentals.

      There will be demand, just not from seniors or low income residents.

      Delete
    2. Exactly, WC. Fake concerns and "logical" comments written by slick developer and City consultants still way obvious in pushing acceptance of the greed-driven HEU. Ten or so years ago, the schtick might have stuck; not so now. Go ply your trade in a less savvy town, shill.

      Delete
    3. Very few places where "logical" is an insult. Once again, someone who cannot fathom a person who doesn't agree with them unless it's a nefarious conspiracy.

      Actually, I agree with EU on this one. My parents are hitting the age where their home is becoming too much. They considered a move to downtown condo (not Encinitas) but they realized in a short time they will need assisted living. Instead of moving twice, it makes more sense to stick it out in their home as long as they can.

      Delete
    4. "Logical" obviously doesn't = logical. Something is very wrong with this new voice on the blog. Those who have marked it agree that this is a fictitious persona-style communicator who sticks out like a sore thumb. Been there, heard that during Prop A and from the BIA when "representing" affordable housing.

      You'll sleep better if you find an honest way to make a living.

      Delete
    5. Okay, I Googled it, and came up empty, but I'm fascinated by the paranoid delusions that come with conspiratorial minds, so please explain: what exactly is "a fictitious persona-style communicator?"

      Delete
    6. No need to Google. Look at the cancelled Peak Democracy contract you'll see the line item. The City (taxpayers, actually) were paying for a fictitious persona to intervene should the PD comments get out of control.

      Maybe you can't spell, because when I Googled "fictitious persona" I got pages and pages of hits. Or maybe you know better and you're just back at it again.

      You can use the "paranoid" and "conspiracy" terms that you like - interesting you're in company with Shaffer on that. Many "obstructionists" - another council favorite used most often by Barth - find that these terms are leveled against them by council members when the council finds itself caught with its pants down. Which is, as we all know, a rather regularly-scheduled occurrence.

      Delete
    7. "Something is very wrong with this new voice on the blog. Those who have marked it agree that this is a fictitious persona-style communicator who sticks out like a sore thumb. "

      If you're referring to me at 3:44 PM you couldn't be more wrong. I'm very real and I am logical. But of course logical people often think for themselves which is a big no-no here. I agree I stick out like a sore thumb because I don't uncritically swallow many of the things said here. I'm not the only one as comments above attest. It's unfortunate that you have to resort to attempting to somehow discredit the poster rather than the post.

      I have no illusions of changing the minds of the faithful here. I, and I think others, want to be sure that the occasional viewer isn't duped by one-sided, often juvenile comments. Discussion is good. Distorting and making things up is not.

      Delete
    8. And rose-colored glasses in the face of years of back-room deals is most definitely a distortion. You can't change the minds of most folks here - we've seen the crapola with our own eyes.

      Delete
    9. 12:33 PM

      "And rose-colored glasses in the face of years of back-room deals is most definitely a distortion."

      So what you're really saying is you don't have the ability to elect good people to the council. Even the candidates that you strongly supported here in the past are now regularly slammed as being untrustworthy and incompetent. It appears your judgement is suspect.

      It must be all those backroom deals that everyone here is convinced are occurring with regularity. Is there no one here with the strength to resist those backroom deals? The 2016 election isn't that far away. Surely, those of you with the moral fiber are anxious to get in there and right the ship of state.

      Delete
    10. They may have used Seniors and Millenials as the reason to build Pac Station, but the reality was they owned the land and wanted to build Pac Station. Bad, out of place out of place density is just that. I think most of us know the load of manure that Developers spread out to sell their wares. It's part of the game, and we aren't fooled.

      -MGJ

      Delete
    11. I notice you slip from topic to topic. Let's step back a minute. Why did you pretend to have Googled "fictitious persona" and found nothing? Or did you just pretend to that you loaned it up in the first place?

      Delete
    12. Whoops: looked it up?

      Delete
    13. 1:37-1:39 PM

      If you think 9:33 AM ("Okay, I Googled it, and came up empty, ..") is the same person as 12:45 PM (which is me) we aren't. Sorry. Guess again.

      You need to step back again as there are clearly more of us.

      "I notice you slip from topic to topic." Isn't that standard operating procedure on this blog?

      Delete
    14. 9:33 here.

      I Googled "fictitious persona-style communicator." It was such an odd yet specific phrase that I thought it had to be paraphrased or quoted from somewhere.

      I had forgotten about the PD contract language, which sounds ominous, but probably refers to a moderator that doesn't use a real name to avoid personalizing a policy debate. You know, like EU, WC Verones, Mr. Green Jeans, The Sculpin, etc. None of these names will be found in the white pages, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Glutenfreesingles.com, ergo they are fictitious personas, and yet, you choose to participate.

      I know it's tough to imagine, but there are actual live private citizens of Encinitas who have different perspectives from you. I happen to be one of them, and no, I have zero friends, family members, neighbors or personal connections to city hall, developers, or anyone living in a hollowed out volcano. Turning people who disagree into caricatures is a lazy way to avoid engaging in a debate that might challenge your assumptions.

      But I'm pretty sure you are about to do it anyway.

      Delete
    15. So you lied about not finding anything.

      Yawn.

      Delete
    16. Just a guess. Did you ever skateboard without a helmet?

      http://bit.ly/1Atu2fm

      Delete
    17. I'm sorry, we were talking about your fictitious Google search.

      Delete
  7. Y'all can argue infinitum over the reality (or not) of how seniors/boomers/fill in the blank want to live.

    The fact is, Encinitas' HEU is a barely-veiled excuse to create income for depleted City coffers and engage in a one hand washes the other hand arrangement with developers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we all agree on that, the question is as always, what the hell are we going to do about it?

      12:05 welcome to the blog, quality input is always welcome. As Kris said to Sinead "Don't let the bastards get you down"

      -MGJ

      Delete
    2. 1:39 PM

      Thanks but I'm not new and I don't let the bastards get me down.

      Delete
    3. 9:33, still waiting for you to explain your pretense on Googling "fictitious persona." Not holding my breath.

      MGJ, nice job calling out a friend as a "bastard."

      Delete
  8. My greatest objection is that Planning released a 400-page Housing Element and discussed almost 20 new housing programs that Council voted to send up to the State after they had been posted for about a week. Council is trusting Jeff, Manjeet and various consultants instead of doing the work of reading the documents or asking for more time so that they can evaluate the information.

    In 2011, Patrick Murphy wrote a very concise paper for members of the building industry which stated that there would be no low income housing, and that instead, the housing consultant was providing high-density, market rate units.

    Why does planning provide a few sentences for the building industry, while citizens, who are paying for all of this, are provided almost 900 pages for the General Plan Update and now 400 pages for the Housing Element.

    Every position that they have taken has been ins support of the market-rate, high density plan that they have discussed over and over again. Yet for the voters and the Council, planners all claim that the lack of affordable housing is the driving force for a plan that will ruin the quality of life for all.

    They will continue to spend our money to keep their jobs--no matter what it does to us.

    ReplyDelete